On the day it was released, the Sanjay Leela Bhansali-directed movie Padmaavat was blacked out in various States across the country, especially in North India and the courtroom drama playing out around the film has not ended. The Supreme Court received two more petitions regarding the movie, but for a change these were not seeking a ban on the film or even a review of the court’s earlier order the quashed the ban imposed by some States. These petitions are for contempt and are against the Karni Sena for the violence unleashed, and against the State governments of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Haryana for not reining in the protests despite the apex court’s order.
The violence surrounding the film is unacceptable, as is the manner in which States failed to gear up to meet the protests. A day before the release of Padmaavat, protestors attacked a school bus with children in Haryana. Luckily no one was injured, but what does this say about the rule of law in the State and in the country? Four major states – Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Haryana – did not screen the film. What does this say about these States, their governments and the security forces? What does this say about freedom of expression in the country? Why can’t State governments provide the minimum security to theatres and multiplexes to screen a movie, instead of allowing the fringe elements protesting a movie to dictate to them?
If that can be ascribed to a lack of political will to let the film be screened, what does one say about theatres that bowed down to the dictates of mob fury so easily and refused to screen a film cleared by the Central Board Film Certification? Against this background, what future does art and creative licence have in India?
The questions that can be asked in reference to this issue are many and the debate surrounding it can go on, and possibly will for a few more days. This is not the first time that a film or a book has attracted such strong emotions in the country leading to calls for a ban on the release and even to violence. It possibly won’t be the last as the opponents of Padmaavat have tasted a degree of success on the streets, despite having lost in the court. This will serve to encourage more fringe elements to voice their objections to other works of art, film and literature.
If there was violence in the rest of the country, in Goa though there was no ban on the film screening in the State, Padmaavat was screened in merely a couple of towns – Vasco and Ponda – and that too under police security. A large percentage of multiplexes and single screen theatres preferred not to screen the film. Ironically, the State’s showpiece multiplex that has been hosting the International Film Festival of India since 2004 did not screen the film. A big blow indeed to cinema in Goa and any ‘film culture’ that the State is hoping to promote since the international film festival has found a permanent home in the State.
Multiplexes and single screen cinema theatres that refused to screen the film Padmaavat have sent a strong message that they do not believe in the freedom of expression or creativity. Without saying it, the multiplex managements showed their fear for the mob that would prefer to stop a film, with the manager of one of the local theatre groups saying aloud that the loss of property in case of any violence is far greater than the ‘miniscule’ amount that would be collected from screening the film.
Patrons of cinemas need to transcend these boundaries of money and embrace the art in whatever form it comes.
